Wind Power Without the Blades

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I wonder if the workers there have fertility tests, say, every 3 or 6 months...dunno just curious...!

reply to post by svetlana84


I like the leaves idea!

They could use the concept from this Thread
13 year old makes solar power breakthrough by harnessing the Fibonacci sequence

Solar panel leaves to increase wind resistance, and solar energy from the leaves.

Wind power and solar power in one, talk about efficient.

DC

Originally posted by svetlana84
reply to post by mr10k

 

I guess what reitze means: if the poles had leaves they would bend even more in wind, bacause of the bigger air resistance. While we at it: lets hook some solar panel leaves on it, to get more electricity out.

Anyway, i like the concept, looks nice and organic. Not so sure How efficient it would be, but it s worth a try.

yea, leaves needles, cones, even some propellers would help that concept.

BTW, I have a patent co-author named Svetlana working a wind-related patent with me.

Originally posted by xDeadcowx
reply to post by svetlana84

 

I like the leaves idea!

They could use the concept from this Thread
13 year old makes solar power breakthrough by harnessing the Fibonacci sequence

Solar panel leaves to increase wind resistance, and solar energy from the leaves.

Wind power and solar power in one, talk about efficient.

DC

Thanks. Perhapse you'll also appreciate my Wind turbine with variable area propeller blades (patent by reitze issued 3/13/2012). My simulation results demonstrates it will provide such a boost to the power output that the ROI will be better than investing in a gas turbine. Especially the way gas prices and fracking damage are going.


BTW, the Fibonacci sequence is relevant as captured in the claims of my patent and visible in this diagram by extending the blade-extension again and again. It would spiral-wrap closed or open to the large thin blades. Depending on the size of the installation and variability of the wind that would be quite interesting to put to use. But for the sake of the patent I think I actually captured the concept.

Originally posted by Patriotsrevenge

Originally posted by cerebralassassins
Now thats one place i would not want to be in or around during a lighting storm.

Isn't it funny how everyone ignores the fact that lightning could provide a lot of extra power to any city. We have two large TV and Radio towers that get struck every time a storm comes through. Seems like free power to me.

Yea, that's gotta be an alternate use for HAARP if anyone military ever gave a # about anything other than weapons. (actually a bit harsh, they do care)

I really have a problem with the mechanical physics.

Let's say you have a 30 second sustained airburst of about 20mph, and you are comparing one of these whips to a standard wind turbine. Side by side

The whip will bend, produce electricity as it bends, but will ultimately stay bent until the gust of wind subsides.
While motionless as it stays bent, there will be no further energy produced. We know this from the piezo effect, that the electricity is produced when pressure is applied but ceases when the pressure remains constant. If this were not true, we could clamp a vise onto a piece of quartz and get a limitless supply of current.

Meanwhile, while this pole is staying bent in the wind, the propeller of a wind turbine will get a number of revolutions on it's generator and produce electricity.

I fail to see any benefit, other than esoteric. In fact I see much less current produced by a whip, then a turbine blade in any scenario that compares them. This is really all about producing free energy, and that should trump any design that cannot keep up with the current benchmark, which is a turbine and blade.

What I can see, is a combination of the two. It takes alot of wasted wind energy to get a turbine blade to start spinning. In this case the whip will probably compensate for that as it will bend fast. The same would be true when the wind subsides and the whip bends back to vertical, producing energy. The blade will spin down slowly and produce energy as well. Whip and Blade may be a real winner.

Originally posted by charlyv
I really have a problem with the mechanical physics.

Let's say you have a 30 second sustained airburst of about 20mph, and you are comparing one of these whips to a standard wind turbine. Side by side

The whip will bend, produce electricity as it bends, but will ultimately stay bent until the gust of wind subsides.
While motionless as it stays bent, there will be no further energy produced.

I see what you are saying, but I think the premise of these systems is that they would not simply bend over, but waver in the wind, much like a field of long grass or wheat. This means that they will thrive off of turbulent winds and can be closer together, as the vortex shedding off of other windstalks will provide turbulent flow to enhance dynamic motion, as opposed to the constant steady flow that a wind turbine prefers.

After completion, a Windstalk should be able to produce as much electricity as a single wind turbine, with the advantage that output could be increased with a denser array of stalks. Density is not possible with conventional turbines, which need to be spaced about three times the rotor's diameter in order to avoid air turbulence. But Windstalks work on chaos and turbulence so they can be installed much closer together, said Núñez-Ameni.

In saying that, I will wait till I see a working prototype before I believe that they will produce as much or more electricity than a conventional turbine. I can't really see a single windstalk producing as much energy as a single wind turbine, but maybe the increased density of windstalks could produce similiar amounts of energy per unit of area. Perhaps they could end up being more of a novelty than a genuine means to make electricity. But if it does work as they have claimed, it could be quite an interesting prospect worth looking into.

reply to post by Curious and Concerned

Great response, and i see your point as well.
Perhaps we could both agree that the combination of the two could be very effective and could exist in relatively the same footprint.